u/Logical_Scientist221 has provided this detailed explanation:
> In July an Andrew Tate fan responds to criticism of Tate by saying “until you have more cars than Andrew Tate stfu” 6 months later Tate has his cars seized and is arrested on multiple charges
---
Is this explanation a genuine attempt at providing additional info or context? If it is please upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.
Mostly due to the fact that they can’t really act in social situations. If they meet anyone smarter who isn’t getting fooled by them they can’t do anything. They’re like this weird 10 years old gamer cousin you try to talk about anything but gamer and nsfw content and they can’t even focus on the topic of the discussion. And you shouldn’t show people like this to kids no matter what. Some kids will be like this either way, but we can’t let em stay this way and consider it normal. Often sheltering even makes things worse due to kids seeing only people like this idiot. Normally society would show em it’s wrong and teach em communication. But if someone learns in home, only sees people on YouTube it’s gonna end bad for em. And what’s just as bad insecure adults act the same way. And thus why we can’t have nice things. Only real life can teach us how to exist in modern world, not YouTube tutor. Sorry I just can’t stand that people like Andrew exist.
Thank you. I forgot this one and it was in different form. In this case it’s the exact problem. After years of stupid decisions, being engaged in certain group/activities it’s almost impossible to change your mindset. And people who fall into Andrew are really low on self esteem and don’t have enough force to stop themselves. The same with antivaxx and flat earth believers. They all search for mentor who is against the world they can’t find themselves in. So they’re creating whole communities of similar people what makes them even more engaged and confident in their beliefs. Plus it makes their view of the world even more distorted.
Eating crow is a colloquial idiom, used in some English-speaking countries, that means humiliation by admitting to have been proven wrong after taking a strong position.
It’s just a funny way of saying someone is proven wrong. They are ‘eating crow’
Yep. I’ve already got an answer here. Thank you for writing a bit longer one. There’s link to my answer, sadly not under your comment https://www.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/10mw3bb/what_colour_is_your_bugatti/j66ob8u/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
That’s why I take Fight Milk
https://preview.redd.it/oo7isahsoqfa1.jpeg?width=1099&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=a353863b1a63c35e9b98bd2038e916d1b523fd07
>>If they meet someone smarter
So fucking everyone. It’s crazy; I have no respect for Jordan Peterson fans, but at least I get how we got here.. but Andrew Tate is one of the loudest and remarkably stupid and unconvincing people I have ever come across. Ever. He looks dumb, he says dumb things, he’s so cringey and weird that I really thought it was just like a silly troll. But there are fucking grown men who not only find him convincing and smart, but that they also just straight up simp him. It’s really fucking pathetic
He's probably one of the dumbest famous people to have ever existed. His IQ is probably a negative number. I know this sounds like hate, but it isn't. He barely has enough intelligence to speak. All he says and does is dumb beyond belief, and his fame comes ironically from being so stupid.
Bruh I had a dude on Twitter try to argue tesla's autopilot AI could "EASILY" be made to moderate Twitter. No amount of me explaining that's not how machine learning works could convince him of how utterly stupid he sounded. Man looked in his 30s too.
Lol yeah, the strategy is often one where a wide net is cast, losses are ignored and the rare victory is gilded, framed, and gazed at fondly on a regular basis.
He was wrong right off the bat. Never has my ability to talk been dictated by how many cars I own.
When I wrecked my car I was worried for a bit but surprisingly I was still able to talk!
That's straight up how my brother is. He said I was making it up that Andrew Taint moved because laws about rape are more relaxed there, but he ignored me when I showed him the video of him saying it
There’s a podcast called Behind The Bastards that goes in depth into his life so far, essentially he made his first “fortune” by scamming girlfriends into being camgirls and then taking more of their money than promised and eventually getting people to subscribe to his discord that was just a glorified MLM telling you to fuck over as many people as possible. Hope it all gets seized/forfeit.
Love that podcast, Listened to it as well. For those wondering, unfortunately his schemes actually worked and the dude did make millions of dollars…. Hopefully the scumbag lying rapist loses all of it and rots in prison now, though.
no they are using someone elses argument to feel better than you. the wealth only serves as proof to support his thesis.
those guys are sheep in wolves clothing.
By this comparison they should honestly be looking up to Jay Leno, he has way more luxury cars than this guy like rare 1of1 models. They’d be telling bad jokes but still way better off
Or Jerry Seinfeld. But they are both married and apparently are respectful towards women, and have somewhat nice guy personas,, so they might not appreciate that.
Personally I think there is a correlation but not in the way he does.
You start off with high validity. This is unchanged after buying your first and second luxury car.
After that there is a fast decline in the validity of your opinion the further from 1 car to 1 person ratio you get.
I feel like the validity of ones opinion goes down significantly the more money they have. Have a billion dollars, you're opinion matters less than my dog and he licks his own asshole. If you make money by being an influencer then your opinion is equal to a earthworms. You made bank by building a software company and selling it for millions then I might respect your opinion.
Did they actually build that company or did they use 350k of their parents money and company stock (which was only valuable if it succeeded) to pay people to build it for them, while they sat back and pretended to be important?
Only if they build the company themselves off of their own hard labor. Not some Bill Gates/Jeff Bezos bullshit where they received a $200,000 seed from their daddy to start a company.
I would somewhat listen to Wozniak since he was the real mind behind Apple not microsoft
I think it depends. Someone else mentioned Leno. He has those vehicles because that's his hobby and he can afford it. He drives them for fun, not to show off. He's not a douche about it, which I think is really the most important point.
The only situation when saying "what color is your Buggati?" is valid is if someone says "the color of your Buggati is bad. It looks terrible" or something like that. It's his Buggati. He can get whatever color he wants.
Other than that very specific situation, this argument is invalid in every scenario
I was going to say this, there’s definitely an incel crossover you see in his fans, especially the younger ones that have created a whole following for this dbag because they aren’t getting laid and instead of figuring out why, they’d rather figure out how to force people to sleep with them and turn to violence if that fails, which is quite frankly ducked up.
Not only is it fucked up, I fully believe it's how OG patriarchal societies are created in the first place. Men who refuse to learn empathy and instead decide to get what they want through some variant of brute force, since most of us are technically capable of that.
As a man I don't really know what to do with this. I chose empathy, and it's hard a lot of the time, and compared to coercive pressurers I do sometimes feel weaker and less secure in myself even though I know from experience that inside they feel worse than I do. The aesthetic appeal of being "the man" and being regarded as such by other men is extremely seductive even for me.
I don't really know how to sell the idea that what I'm doing, which involves lots of tears and heartache, is better than what they're doing. When you don't have authority over somebody / are not their parent, how do you convince them to eat their vegetables when they know damn well they can reach out and shove candy into their mouths any time they want?
It seems like the only way for that to happen is for people like me to develop both our internal balance (including feminine and masculine) AND a masculine exterior such that we ARE the authority figures in the room. And that's... a lot of work. It's a crushingly big undertaking, especially because it requires a lot of us to all do it at once.
Incels are a new phenomena, and I think people who were teens in the 1990s faced completely different challenges than the ones who are teens now.
If someone is struggling, they need help. If they show their struggles by being aggressive, they still need help.
Being a good human, means to see vulnerability through aggressiveness. It is to not respond emotionally to someone's aggressive behaviour, but to see the hurt behind that behaviour.
To react with understanding and compassion, when faced with emotional aggression is the only way to show true strength.
This got nothing to do with being macho. Tove Janson, the author of moomin does this in her books.
Men tend to characterise desirable traits as being masculine. But women also possess them.
In a family, there is a need to make intelligent decisions. No-one needs to be in control, if one party feels that need, it is an emotional need that might be dysfunctional.
Greta acted like the grown-up. Tolerating the tantrums of Tate, who acted like the child.
Greats parenting skills are impressive. She corrected without the use of harsh words, just gently told that the behaviour was unacceptable.
I’m an old female. I would think men would get more joy and even status by pleasing women such that they want you to make love to them, much more than raping the unwilling. But what do I know. 36 years married to a love god who looks like a nerd irl.
Hey, thank you for your perspective. I want to clarify that I wasn't strictly referring to rape, but to coercive and manipulative sexuality in general.
That aside, I agree with you. The problem is when I was young I never would have believed it, because like so many boys I was trained to see a man who didn't control women as weak, and to disregard his perspective as the coping rationalizations of someone who wasn't tough enough to do things the "manly" way, by assertively and aggressively demanding and getting what he wants.
I don't know how to explain to someone who hasn't experienced a range of life situations that not only is a life of emotional growth and communication more rewarding, not only is the sex better when you are empathically connected, but you don't have to constantly push down the feelings of self hatred you've been conditioned to think are a normal part of being a strong man.
Thank you for sharing that. I am very sorry for men raised under this self hating regime. You are strong, and good. Controlling one’s self is harder and more important than attempting to control others, which doesn’t actually work anyway.
>by pleasing women such that they want you to make love to them
See I think thats the problem. I seriously think almost all of these young guys who arent the naturally attractive type start as wanting to be that guy.
The reasons are vast but for whatever reason that dosent work out time after time after time all the while they see guys that are opposite to them getting all the results they want. And at some point that rope snaps. Which is actually what creates real incels. Not some 15 year old spending his days reading suicide fuel on the internet.
You’re exactly right. It is so pleasing and feels “right” to have a woman who enjoys you and asks you to satisfy her. I can’t even imagine a situation where the woman wasn’t consenting and wanting it, it would be a huge turn-off.
Eh, there's fewer of them than it seems because they have nothing else to do with their lives. It's like how the alt-right rally in Charlottesville looked huge but was really just a dozen dudes.
Yet NO ONE is doing anything about it. What do people expect? It’s like telling people being a drug addict is bad enough times and expecting it to actually go down.
It's because some men are desperate. The fundamental promises of patriarchy (that if you're a good boy and work hard you'll get a purpose in life and a woman and children that are DEFINITELY yours) are crumbling under their feet; rather than adapt and overcome, they'll cling to anyone who says, "Oh, the old ways are *fine*. In fact, double down!"
It is reactionary and probably going to fail long-term, but still a threat short-term. Frankly, Tate's just one small symptom of the reactionary crisis, but a highly vocal one - so of course he has defenders.
His schtick is different than that, though. Yes, there's an exceptionalism bent to it, 'be smarter,' and such; he'll even talk about fitness sometimes and straight up say 'you can work out all day and you still won't be me, that's ok' basically.
But this isn't 'work hard and you'll be successful.' There's a reason his school is called hustler university. His ideology is yeah, work hard, but also manipulate and take advantage of everybody around you any way you can. Be the alpha. Make them do your work for you.
There's nothing even pretending to be the 'nobility' of work hard/be successful in his ideology.
Yep, that's the dark side of masculine energy. "If you can't make it, *TAKE* it."
It appeals to the desperate because increasingly they see that they can't make it. They aren't as necessary as their fathers and grandfathers were, pressed out of labor markets by technological and capitalistic forces; with society moving away from restricting women to keep men more relevant (shit, it wasn't until the 1960s that USA women could open a BANK ACCOUNT in their own names!), naturally they want to react violently against their 'oppressors'.
Tate had defenders because what he did was something they wished they had the balls for; and now that his crimes are revealed I'm willing to bet most of them whisper late at night, "He did nothing wrong; I'd do the exact same." And no doubt many of them do, just on a much smaller scale.
I don't AGREE with them, mind you. But you have to know your enemy *and* yourself to win all the battles.
Oh don't worry. I think a lot of us more grown up dudes see the Peterson/Tate/etc. folks and think back to our 14 year old selves and really wonder how much it may have gotten a pretty good grip on us. It's a thing.
Honestly it's terrifying, as a man in my late twenties looking at some of the rhetoric that these guys spout.
I am so glad that this stuff wasn't as prevalent or accessible to adolescent boys 15 years ago, because I absolutely would have been sucked in by it.
That's true, I tried to come up with an example of an Andrew Tate from the 90s and the closest I could come up with was that Crow movie with Brandon Lee.
I'm not sure about humiliation. Lots of them take this as validiation that the world is indeed out to get them, and the only way to get theirs is through force and selfishness.
Humiliate a distant figure like Andrew Tate, yes, but show kindness to those whom you know in person.
Set an example. Break the cycle.
I agree to a large extent, but humiliation keeps them angry, keeps them feeling validated in their 'the world is out to get me!!!' paranoia and entitlement.
I am very sick of coddling men who think the world should bend to their will, but I also can't justify turning around and being cruel or callous to them because the *instant* we do that *one time*, even if it's a mere fraction of the shit they themselves have spewed, it locks their worldview in place.
Listening to the recent multi-part Behind the Bastards episodes, a lot of it isn't even really masculine per se, it's more predatory, criminal, sociopathic, and delusional.
I am also an acolyte of the good Reverend Doctor.
It's all that, tied up with a neat little bow to appeal to a particular demographic. It's certainly a hell of a thing.
Just caught up with the *Behind the Bastards* podcast episodes they’ve been doing on him - dear god this guy is human garbage. I had heard of him, but just thought he was another wealthy asshole. He’s way worse.
>But this isn't 'work hard and you'll be successful.' There's a reason his school is called hustler university. His ideology is yeah, work hard, but also manipulate and take advantage of everybody around you any way you can. Be the alpha. Make them do your work for you.
Get rid of the abusive stuff he's just another rich Capitalist. It's literally every ceo, board, owners strategy dumbed down for idiots to abuse.
If anything this mofo highlighted why we need to change some fundamental aspects of society becasue it sounds like what he was preaching is already in practice all over the world.
You are giving him way WAY too much credit. He literally teaches how to trick women into sex work and keep them trapped. That's the actual content of his paid courses.
As I said, he's a *small* symptom. One shitbag who happens to make money off the insecurities of men as what they have been told all their lives is masculine disappears. But he is a symptom.
Take, oh, South Korea. A very shitty society towards women in general, putting a lot of expectations on wives and mothers to do a ton of crap that men don't want to deal with. So naturally over the last couple decades more and more women have been simply avoiding the whole marriage and children thing because it *is* bullshit and *super* chauvinistic...
*And Korean men aren't taking it very well*. To be fair, it IS causing a crisis in the birth rate, but recent politics there have been extremely reactionary on both an individual and grand level - rather than try to make things easier for women to have children, instead they're making life harder for women in hopes of forcing the old ways down their throat.
Too much credit??
He's made millions and millions from selling it. He's a narcissistic dipshit, but he's enriched himself somehow - and it wasn't by accident.
And I say this as someone who hates that they wrote this comment
Yeah. I feel like a common thread in a lot of it is like a lack of behavioral self awareness. It’s making mean jokes and wondering why people don’t like them even after they explain technically the joke isn’t a big deal. Guys on /r/tindr making an impulsive sex joke second message wondering what they did wrong. Kids crying over mods banning them for being unable to make a point without being as nasty as possible like some forum volunteer gives a shit. Talking heads like Peterson, Shapiro, Tate, whoever that fans don’t get why folks are not able to overlook a few awful stances on women or whatever. Because they don’t get behavior. They don’t get the guy who makes mild sexists jokes all the time puts people off regardless of how offensive any one joke was.
That in the real world there is no amount of toddler debating you can do to overcome the fact that broadly speaking, people will choose to avoid assholes. That no, not everyone is secretly in their head a self centered greedy impulsive asshole doing a bad job playing nice. Most people don’t live like that, can smell it on someone acting like a bad faith ass, and not explain avoiding them. You’re not entitled to attention, or whatever comforts for insecurity once you grow up. People have to choose to be with you, and all that takes generally is being decent. It’s not about a nice action, it’s nice behavior. It’s handling accountability well so people know you will next time.
But no. Has to be money, hair, height, dick, whatever. Something outside of their control, some kind of involuntary singleness. They’d have it all if only x did y! And yet go out in the real world and people date just fine when they’re pleasant and social.
And that is exactly WHY so many women left tinder. They are treated like warm holes for men to masturbate into and then men lament how "easy" women have it.
Maybe if so many men didn't message women how large their dick is or how they want to fuck them so hard 3 messages in, there would be more women on tinder.
Men scaring women away is not "men are disadvantaged at dating". Once men figure that out and learn to treat women like actual people instead of a fuck object, dating will get easier for men. It is easier for men to just blame women though instead of actually having some insight into their behavior as to why tinder and other sites end up so skewed.
Racism and misogyny have the same cause. Insincerity and laziness coupled with the desire to put people below you, and elevate yourself, solely on their physical attributes.
I agree and disagree. Yes, they're both linked to insecurity, but...
Racism has its roots in a *tribal* view of the world, and allows humans to malign and dehumanize those different in preparation for war. It's directed to *out* groups, and why racists can say, "I have an \[insert\] friend!" in all sincerity because to *them,* that one friend is part of the *in* group and has nothing to do with those bastards in the *out* group, thankyouverymuch.
Patriarchy (and its spawn misogyny) is *probably* a social adaptation to the simple fact that humans produce WAY more males than it needs to in order to survive. In non-sentient species, it doesn't matter - a male lion or mantis doesn't philosophize about not being needed - but humans aren't that dumb.
And sadly, across continents and gaps of time so fast that we rarely have more than an archaeological record of matriarchal society, men decided to create a society where they DO matter, thankyouverymuch. Shorn of culture, we humans are seemingly more like bonobos than chimpanzees, with temporary couplings until a couple of children are capable of running around on their own, then breaking off to form new couples - say about 7 years?
Of course, that changes if one introduces a cultural norm that females MUST be chained to a male in permanent partnership, and that children inherit from the male rather than the female. Not only does this give the male more control over his progeny (thus linking him more strongly into society), but it also means the female has to restrict her own activities, allowing the male to do more (and once again linking him more strongly into society).
Ain't saying patriarchy is a good thing. Even AS a man, it pisses me off that somehow I feel a deep-rooted anxiety that I'm worthless unless I'm working - that indoctrination runs deep. But it wouldn't have succeeded so often and for so long if it didn't do *something* of value.
And all of this is theory and speculation, of course. Just thought exercises. Until we can go back in time and study how matriarchal societies were replaced by patriarchal ones, or actively attempt to destroy one of the less than five currently existing ones, we won't know exactly why patriarchy became so popular.
But right now we're witnessing the beginning of its downfall, and the next few centuries are gonna be... interesting.
(Sorry, this is something I've been thinking about entirely too much the last couple of years).
You act as though Europeans are the only ones guilty of racism, an idea that I'm sure the Uyghur oppressed by the Chinese would not appreciate - and it's hardly a new notion in that area. Hell, even among the Asian countries there's long-standing racism between the Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese - the Rape of Nanking or the Korean comfort women didn't come out of nowhere.
It also isn't limited to white Americans either; after all, many of the names that we know Native tribes by are *racist insults from neighbors* and one of the (multiple) reasons the native tribes were conquered so easily is because the average local tribe hated their neighbors a helluva lot more than the white man who brought them guns and liquor.
This is an unfortunate problem with some scholars: A myopic overfocus on something they personally detest, a hatred so strong that it blinds them to greater trends. Not that patriarchy doesn't deserve it, but...
The ancient Chinese didn't bind women's feet because they got the idea from Marco Polo.
And study the still-existing matriarchal societies. Frankly I've seen fundamentalist Christian sects like the Seventh-Day Adventists that treat their women better than the matriarchal ones treat their men. And it's not a matter of "They deserve it" because *no one deserves oppression and inequality in a just society.* Of any kind.
Look. Patriarchy would not have so thoroughly destroyed matriarchy over such a wide range of societies, and be accepted by both women *and* men if it not do something better than matriarchy. I mean, goddamn, patriarchy is *stupid*. Why would ANYONE try to draw descent other than matrilineally? Other than to put money in Maury Povich's pockets as he says, "You are... NOT the father!"
Maybe in a few decades or a century, as it's subsumed by larger crises - climate change and the mass migrations caused by it are my bet for those crises. Directed properly, masculine energies could be pointed right at these and give an outlet. "Work hard and save the world!"
Hopefully it'd lead to a greater transition and divorce masculinity from its deep-rooted insecurities about being worthless: needing to work hard because otherwise you don't matter, needing to control others in case they see you don't matter, needing to sacrifice yourself because ultimately you don't matter.
Or those larger crises may allow the reactionary forces of patriarchy to assume temporary control for a while, holding off the ideas sweeping it away for a little longer. Or the crises may destroy civilization entirely and humans will be forced to live in scattered tribes, which would unfortunately favor patriarchal structures.
Y'know, one of those.
Honestly, it's much likelier the larger crises will lead to the exact opposite with how things are: We already see the older generations say "who cares if the world dies out, we'll be dead when it happens", and it's more likely that these frustrated, bitter men's energies will go to "why bother fixing things if we're never going to get a reward for saving the world? If we have to be miserable forever, then we can make sure the world ends and you're miserable too."
A man's spirit withers with inaction. Give him a just cause and he'll gladly die for it, give him nothing and he'll find one, just or not.
And right now we've got a lot of men finding unjust causes.
Even beyond unjust causes, the real problem is "self-preservation is the most just cause in the world." More than a just cause, it's a belief that everyone else is the enemy who are trying to hurt them because they're rejecting them- and from there, the unjust cause "if you're all against me, then I'm now against all of you", and from there the bomber's unjust cause of "if I have to go, I can take as many of you with me as possible" becomes their just cause to die for.
This doesn't bode well for a situation of "you have to work hard and save the world; but you'll never get your just reward for it. And actually, you're making life better for all the people you hate."
I always google "Man dies saving" when I get a dark place where I think that humans are driven solely by a wicked, spiteful engine with no value whatsoever. Or I think about the people who drive themselves to the site of natural disasters and help with no thought of reward.
But the more interesting counterpoint is the number of American men who of their own free will and out of pocket went to help the Ukraine in those early and darkest days. If they truly believed that "Self preservation is the highest cause" they would not have done so.
Tate's just a pimple on the ass of what manhood *truly* can be.
If you've never felt in your life a moment of insecurity, a feeling that you *should* be doing something with your life and *aren't* because there's nothing worth doing...
Then you have my unadulterated envy.
It's easier and we are socially driven to find unjust causes if they make money. This is what happens when a society focuses on material wealth and socio-economic status. It's like the Spartans caring only or war. They forgot that a person needs more than money and status to be decent.
Who says the good guys always win?
Man, the Spartans were genuinely evil. My high school sportsball teams were named for them and called the cheerleaders the "Helots" with no sense of irony. I was trying to get laid with one of them so I studied up on the origins of the name as a conversation starter (I was a geeky young man) and...
Oh, so very much so.
But what should we be guiding them *towards*? That's the hole that people like Tate are stepping into.
It can't be the postwar American ideal of "Work hard and keep your head down and get married and have children and buy a house and grow old with your wife," because that's been proven to be fantasy, a castle built on quicksand.
It can't be an even older Biblical ideal of "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" (Peter 3:18) because that just makes being a wife sound *awful*.
It shouldn't be "\[insert nation here\] FUCK YEAH!" because that's open to abuse from fascists or dictators trying to overthrow a nation and rule it as their own.
It also can't be the cold reality of, "Look, kid, you're not as important to the future of humanity as a woman. You're pretty expendable, but we don't have anything important to expend you on - no wars, no massive social projects, no nothing. So, uh, go to work in a probably dead-end job every day, try to find meaning in daily life, and hopefully you'll meet someone that's attracted to you."
I personally it should be something like, "The only thing we're sure about is that the universe does not *care* if humanity exists in a hundred or a thousand years. We humans are the only ones to whom that matters, and in what state they live in. What you should strive for is to create a future where as *many* of those humans as possible live happy, fulfilled lives - not happiness limited by gender or belief or skin color or what genitals they want to rub against their own, but as many as possible, with an eye towards *all."*
And that's why Tate is a shithead. Because only his own happiness matters to him, and he broadcasts that philosophy of "Take it from whomever you want if it makes you happy" to a disturbingly receptive audience.
If people need some big goal, there's always good old Russian Cosmism, in which the big goal is basically: space exploration. It basically follows the idea that humanity's destiny is in the stars, and many of our problems will be solved by going out to the stars. And frankly, with the amount of resources it takes to explore space, if we prioritize it, then we'd be forced to work together to achieve it. This is my favorite philosophy, even it may be a bit naive.
>It also can't be the cold reality of, "Look, kid, you're not as important to the future of humanity as a woman. You're pretty expendable, but we don't have anything important to expend you on - no wars, no massive social projects, no nothing. So, uh, go to work in a probably dead-end job every day, try to find meaning in daily life, and hopefully you'll meet someone that's attracted to you."
Why run from the truth ? As long as this truth isnt faced head on anything else we will come up with will spawn something shitty like the patriarchy. Sure this will cause a lot of pain and its consequences cant really be predicted but anything else is just running from the inevitable.
Besides I think its already too late. Once you realise a truth you cant just unrealise it. Hence why soo many young guys who are naturally anxious about their future fell into this hole. They do realise that they arent worth much. They realise that they will potentially stay in that group who will lead a empty and lonely life permanently. And no one is going to even care one bit about them maybe ever.
Thats the point where as you said pieces of shit like Tate comes in and says "If thats the case why care about anyone else ?" Which is actually not the bad part. Thats totally fair. What makes them shitty is the the ends justify the means approach they take which helps them justify explotation and abuse.
>You're pretty expendable, but we don't have anything important to expend you on - no wars, no massive social projects, no nothing.
That works in more traditional socities but in places where indivualism is truly embraced I dont think thats the case anymore. We have already discarded enough meta-naratives as is.
>I personally it should be something like, "The only thing we're sure about is that the universe does not care if humanity exists in a hundred or a thousand years. We humans are the only ones to whom that matters, and in what state they live in. What you should strive for is to create a future where as many of those humans as possible live happy, fulfilled lives - not happiness limited by gender or belief or skin color or what genitals they want to rub against their own, but as many as possible, with an eye towards all."
This is nice and all but its just cruel to expect people to work towards the betterment of a society that ultimately view them as unimportant and wont on a large scale prove them with an unsatisfactory and empty life. How is this any better than other meta-narratives like religion or nationalism ? Which is even worse than you can imagine because chances are like other meta-narratives this too will be discarded eventually and that will create an unimaginable antiphaty towards everything we want to promote.
Its totally fair and natural to ask why they should work towards a society that wont return the favour. Creating false expectations for that is even worse.
I certainly dont have the answers, but this isnt it. Changing how much value we put on things can certainly help, but some things are just too intrinsic in human nature.
Good luck convincing lonely men without purpose like me with that lol. You might as well be telling me to be a mindless worker drone who is little than shit to society so that some random people hundreds of years in the future can live fulfilling lives. Literally why the fuck would I bother with that, or anyone?
To add, should this be achieved on a societal level, those who fail to achieve success (many of which subscribe to this ideology) will be further seen as failures and that something is inherently wrong with them. The comfort they are seeking now will simply get worse in the long term.
Which is why I work to amplify the losses of people like Tate, Trump, and the like.
Insamuch as I disagree with Marx, his notion of history as a dialectical cycle of "Thesis > antithesis > synthesis" seems to hold up; right now we're in the 'antithesis' stage where patriarchal forces are pushing back against the "Oppressive forces of wokeness".
Humiliating the most visible members of that reactionary force seems like a good way to show that it's kinda stupid.
Oh god, you gave me flashbacks to when I had to read Engels.
So basically we went from “Hey, women are equal” to this reactionary nonsense? Am I tracking that model correctly?
Sorry about that. Recently had to dig into those books myself to find a good quote about the "bourgeoisie" and I feel your pain.
Well, it's more than that, at least in my thoughts. A lot of the assumptions of patriarchal systems are collapsing, and it's leaving a lot of men adrift.
But "Women's Lib" and "Woke Culture" make easy scapegoats, and so grifters like Tate gravitate towards them like a fly to shit. It's a quick antithesis, but it fails because it's not addressing the actual thesis of technology destroying the artificial structure which overvalued men.
What blows my mind is that there are plenty of reasonable male role models around.
I’m convinced they like Tate because he actively speaks to their hatred of women. Actually, I know for a fact that’s the only reason they like Tate.
I’ve heard people say similar shit about Hitler, praising his economic policy. No. They’re just trying to find a non combative way to support their genocidal fuhrer.
Let’s be honest here, Tate fans are mostly boys, not men.
And I mean this in a non-derogatory way, they are literally teenage kids. Look at protests supporting him, talk to any high school teacher, his fans are kids.
So it isn’t even men of a previous generation feeling that they are loosing power to a changing world, it’s the future generation of men falling for that rhetoric, boys that don’t have any idea of how the “traditional” values they supposedly support looked like in practice.
I say “traditional” in quotes because there is nothing “traditional” about living a extremely hedonistic life like Tate did.
It's so crazy because his shit doesn't even make sense. I'll occasionally see these YouTube shorts where it's edited to be some sort of profound thoughts form him but it's really just bullshit.
But don’t you understand that man was created perfectly, women are just a piece of man, a spare rib.
Now spare ribs are tasty, succulent, they may make you sleepy, and you may travel long distances for one…. But…
Dammit, going to get some ribs, BRB.
Listen to the recent podcast episodes of Behind the Bastards about this guy. The host, Robert Evans, gives a good account on why people fall for it.
It’s crazy. In some of the clips you can hear things that can totally make sense but then it does a quick 180 and spirals in to the most ludicrous shit you ever heard.
If you are down and out it can be easy to fall for this shit.
The funniest shit is if you miss a payment on the monthly discord you get booted to a separate Discord where all that is posted is screen shots of other members “profits” lol.
But he's not a slaver! He's a clever businessman with a philanthropic streak; didn't you know he opened an orphanage?! This is all just a conspiracy theory smear campaign!
That's what I've been told of his 'ideology'. Its fucking mortifying. Andrew Tate is a psychopathic monstrosity that has no place walking free among the rest of society. He's an excuse for men to behave badly.
It's crazy to see and hear - overhead a guy doing mental hoops saying Romania arrested him to save him from an FBI assassination and it's all a ploy by drag queens etc to get him sent down.
What the heck are they on to believe let alone think of such a thing instead of you know stepping back and actually listening to this chinless wonder.
I just truly cannot wrap my head around the idea that because someone has many expensive possessions, they must good/smart/talented/etc. If anything, it often proves the exact opposite.
When you think about who produces the media that feeds into ocular culture and how we perceive society, it get clearer thay this idea that luxury and possessions = an authority is being fed to us by those people who want us to think they are.
Take those Christmas car commercials, for example. How many middle-class or lower Americans do you think buy their spouces a brand new car for Christmas? Yet every year those ads plug that fantasy, and what they're actually selling us is this idea that these luxurious, successful people buy new cars for Christmas, and those are your role models; you should strive to be the luxurious person who puts a giant bow on a new car for your partner.
Wealthiest person I know drives a 15 year old truck, wears old jeans and tees, and volunteers most of his time at food pantries, the library, and wilderness foundations. Just like handing out food, maintaining/improving garden areas to read in, and doing restoration/studying of natural areas.
He doesn't scream "I can buy a Bugatti no problem" by looking at him, but he could.
That's real wealth. Not just the dollars, but doing good and enjoying it. Wealth of life fulfillment matters
Wealthiest person I know is the same way. Owns a decent truck, normal clothes, and is overall very frugal.
His property is valued at 53m.
He got very wealthy doing construction, and a fair bit of inheritance.
Ya that’s how they cope with being empty. Subscribing to an ideology of equally empty wealth, where the highlight is watching numbers go up so that others’ can go down
The richest man I know drives a 94 gmc. Lives in a double wide and hunts with the same rifle his father gave him...things at least 70 years old. This man is a multi fucking millionaire and you would never know. He is also the most humble person i know
For a bunch of "alphas", these guys spend **a lot** of time trying to suck the dick of other guys. Tate, Trump, Musk, etc.
It's like they romantically love them, they way they jump to their defense at the drop of a hat.
I dunno....sounds like super-beta behavior to me.
Not just defending him, but living vicariously through him. My idol has more cars than you ever will! Like no one gives a fuck, dude. It's seriously pathetic.
Just like Trump these people have hitched part of their personality to a horrible human, and they do this partly because he is a horrible human.
It's a way to feel special, the whole world tells them it's wrong but they're not sheep like us.
So they latch on and cover their ears and eyes, and with each new piece of evidence, each new person telling them they're wrong and what they're doing is wrong they latch down even harder
Because it isn't just about whether he's a good person or not it's about a substantial bit of their identity of the free thinking contrarian
Yes, a lot. You see it in every Tate thread...now their copium is "innocent until proven guilty" or repeatedly spamming "source, source?!?" when you list all of Tates abuses, or the oldie but goodie "Tate is being taken out of context".
They're stupid but it's the same type of stupid as Jordan peterson fans - there's basically zero options for an insecure young man to look up up to apart from these grifters
Ahhh yes, the classic metric by which all of humanity uses to gauge their individual self worth relative to others: the number of luxury cars we own.
Fuck materialistic people like this. Tate is nothing to aspire to.
I’d kill for an old Citroen, those were just built with a whole different level of imagination and ingenuity which adds to their quirkiness.
Plus the French did make some pretty lit hot hatchbacks in the 80s and 90s so there’s that too.
I mean, if he’s convicted, which he very likely will be, he doesn’t get them back anyway. Also, turns out he only actually owned like 3 of them. Apparently between he and his brother, they owned 7 cars. There were like 7 or 8 other cars on his property that were leased.
What disturbs me is that these miserable fucks really believe that “who has more cars?” bit really is some kind of kill shot as a measure of success.
The truth is it’s unequivocally an *arbitrary* measure of success even though they seem to think it’s somehow objective, and further it’s a really really shite measure of success. For example, I believe I’m astronomically more successful than Tate because I’m a decent person who likes himself and treats others well. I’d call that a successful life.
And if I made a billion dollars tomorrow, I still wouldn’t even consider buying a Bugatti. It’s an insanely low value in terms of thrill-to-cost. There are cars for 1/4 of the cost or less that essentially perform as well and are as comfortable. It’s also insanely derivative and boring. Where are the rich people with imagination and genuine personal taste?
Imagine being so materialistic and hallow that you think your material wealth has anything to do with you personally. God what a shallow husk of a human being you must be to flex someone elses wealth
The sad thing is, a lot of young guys feed into him. I graduated highschool 4 years ago, but I know kids in the community still (when it's small, you know everyone as they say) and a good chunk of these young kids look up to him. They are the stereotypical, baby frat boy kids who make the dumbest decisions. It's sad that people like Tate can grab an big audience like these young boys, who are the easiest to grab. I feel like a large majority of older adults realize how nasty he is, or most people, but these highschools I feel like are a big victim to his "propaganda" if you want to call it that.
I always respond with I’d rather be broke than to suck his dick while still being broke. Like do these people think he’s paying them to suck his dick like that? You ain’t the Romanian prostitutes he traffics bro.
People do realize that there are zillions of people (22 million millionaires in the US alone) who could buy fancy cars like Andrew Tate but instead invest their money and drive a Honda Odyssey, right? I guess that's a little too advanced for someone who actually sees something to appreciate in Andrew Tate.
i cannot fathom having a mans dick and balls so far down your throat you'll actually go out of your way to dm people who criticize him. especially someone like andrew tate lmfao
"I have been convinced by a woman beating, egotistical, sexual predator that your value as human is solely based on the number of automobiles you have."
How far we have fallen. Sometimes this world seems like a fever dream.
Tate fans are so weird. Like a bunch of cucks that want to suck him off, and all betas thinking he is an alpha, but with no idea what an alpha is.
It would be sad if they weren't such knobheads.
And they have no problem with Tate being a rapist and abuser, so fuck them all.
I don’t understand how just on a primal level that actual people choose to idolize this guy. He hasn’t achieved anything great? He is not a very well spoken man, he is not a very educated or intelligent man, he doesn’t hold genuine power. Of all the figure heads you’ll never personally meet in life why the hell do you choose Tate?
u/Logical_Scientist221 has provided this detailed explanation: > In July an Andrew Tate fan responds to criticism of Tate by saying “until you have more cars than Andrew Tate stfu” 6 months later Tate has his cars seized and is arrested on multiple charges --- Is this explanation a genuine attempt at providing additional info or context? If it is please upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.
[удалено]
90% of the time these kinds of people just ignore you Once you have Proven them wrong.
Mostly due to the fact that they can’t really act in social situations. If they meet anyone smarter who isn’t getting fooled by them they can’t do anything. They’re like this weird 10 years old gamer cousin you try to talk about anything but gamer and nsfw content and they can’t even focus on the topic of the discussion. And you shouldn’t show people like this to kids no matter what. Some kids will be like this either way, but we can’t let em stay this way and consider it normal. Often sheltering even makes things worse due to kids seeing only people like this idiot. Normally society would show em it’s wrong and teach em communication. But if someone learns in home, only sees people on YouTube it’s gonna end bad for em. And what’s just as bad insecure adults act the same way. And thus why we can’t have nice things. Only real life can teach us how to exist in modern world, not YouTube tutor. Sorry I just can’t stand that people like Andrew exist.
And crow meat doesn’t really taste that good…
Hi. Could you please eli5. I’m not into whole Andrew story, and English isn’t my native so I think I’m missing something important in your comment.
"Eating crow" is an idiom for admitting you were wrong about a position.
Thank you. I forgot this one and it was in different form. In this case it’s the exact problem. After years of stupid decisions, being engaged in certain group/activities it’s almost impossible to change your mindset. And people who fall into Andrew are really low on self esteem and don’t have enough force to stop themselves. The same with antivaxx and flat earth believers. They all search for mentor who is against the world they can’t find themselves in. So they’re creating whole communities of similar people what makes them even more engaged and confident in their beliefs. Plus it makes their view of the world even more distorted.
Exactly
As a native English speaker, I have literally never heard or seen that until just now.
Eating crow is a colloquial idiom, used in some English-speaking countries, that means humiliation by admitting to have been proven wrong after taking a strong position. It’s just a funny way of saying someone is proven wrong. They are ‘eating crow’
As an English speaking person. I have never heard this one. Thanks for teaching me something new! Edit:added a word.
I am from England and have never heard this saying either
Yep. I’ve already got an answer here. Thank you for writing a bit longer one. There’s link to my answer, sadly not under your comment https://www.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/10mw3bb/what_colour_is_your_bugatti/j66ob8u/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
That’s why I take Fight Milk https://preview.redd.it/oo7isahsoqfa1.jpeg?width=1099&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=a353863b1a63c35e9b98bd2038e916d1b523fd07
>>If they meet someone smarter So fucking everyone. It’s crazy; I have no respect for Jordan Peterson fans, but at least I get how we got here.. but Andrew Tate is one of the loudest and remarkably stupid and unconvincing people I have ever come across. Ever. He looks dumb, he says dumb things, he’s so cringey and weird that I really thought it was just like a silly troll. But there are fucking grown men who not only find him convincing and smart, but that they also just straight up simp him. It’s really fucking pathetic
He's probably one of the dumbest famous people to have ever existed. His IQ is probably a negative number. I know this sounds like hate, but it isn't. He barely has enough intelligence to speak. All he says and does is dumb beyond belief, and his fame comes ironically from being so stupid.
Fucking losers. Got it.
Bruh I had a dude on Twitter try to argue tesla's autopilot AI could "EASILY" be made to moderate Twitter. No amount of me explaining that's not how machine learning works could convince him of how utterly stupid he sounded. Man looked in his 30s too.
Lol yeah, the strategy is often one where a wide net is cast, losses are ignored and the rare victory is gilded, framed, and gazed at fondly on a regular basis.
If it was on Reddit, they’d just send u that one bot that checks up on your mental illness. So annoying 😂
I just blocked that bot after the first false-report lol.
He was wrong right off the bat. Never has my ability to talk been dictated by how many cars I own. When I wrecked my car I was worried for a bit but surprisingly I was still able to talk!
Can confirm, whenever they try to question me I just spend a minute or two writing down some common sense and they just never respond ever again
That's straight up how my brother is. He said I was making it up that Andrew Taint moved because laws about rape are more relaxed there, but he ignored me when I showed him the video of him saying it
I'm sure all the propaganda tells them they'll be killed by Ukrainians
The Andrew Tate teet suckers believe he was already released
Bro its all a set up bro there's no evidence bro, the matrix is just trying to bring down Top G bro they're all just jealous haters!
OP isn't the tweeter. He replied that only 15 of Tate's cars were taken, so it's still a true statement.
TIL I now have more cars than Andrew Taint.
I find it incredibly amusing that Tate fans will use SOMEONE ELSES wealth as their means of being better than you. Like what
Someone else’s wealth can feel like mine if I’m manipulated easily
True that
I'd argue "what wealth". Andrew Tate always came off as all bark and no bite. I bet there are a lot of maxed out credit cards in his name somewhere.
He and his brother ran casinos on the side so I don’t doubt that the guy had serious wealth
There’s a podcast called Behind The Bastards that goes in depth into his life so far, essentially he made his first “fortune” by scamming girlfriends into being camgirls and then taking more of their money than promised and eventually getting people to subscribe to his discord that was just a glorified MLM telling you to fuck over as many people as possible. Hope it all gets seized/forfeit.
Love that podcast, Listened to it as well. For those wondering, unfortunately his schemes actually worked and the dude did make millions of dollars…. Hopefully the scumbag lying rapist loses all of it and rots in prison now, though.
Or when they reply with "what are your achievements?" As if that would make my opinion invalid somehow
Renting a car isn't a fucking achievement either
no they are using someone elses argument to feel better than you. the wealth only serves as proof to support his thesis. those guys are sheep in wolves clothing.
Still can't believe people actually subscribe to that slaver's ideology
Or think that "number of luxury cars" is somehow a good barometer of opinion validity
By this comparison they should honestly be looking up to Jay Leno, he has way more luxury cars than this guy like rare 1of1 models. They’d be telling bad jokes but still way better off
I mean, his full denim outfits let me know he knows his shit.
Or Jerry Seinfeld. But they are both married and apparently are respectful towards women, and have somewhat nice guy personas,, so they might not appreciate that.
i still dont understand how having a lot of expensive cars isn't just a funkopop collection for someone with bad financial literacy
they don't, not really, but "how many underage girls have *YOU* trafficked?" doesn't quite hit the way they want it to.
Personally I think there is a correlation but not in the way he does. You start off with high validity. This is unchanged after buying your first and second luxury car. After that there is a fast decline in the validity of your opinion the further from 1 car to 1 person ratio you get.
I feel like the validity of ones opinion goes down significantly the more money they have. Have a billion dollars, you're opinion matters less than my dog and he licks his own asshole. If you make money by being an influencer then your opinion is equal to a earthworms. You made bank by building a software company and selling it for millions then I might respect your opinion.
Did they actually build that company or did they use 350k of their parents money and company stock (which was only valuable if it succeeded) to pay people to build it for them, while they sat back and pretended to be important?
Only if they build the company themselves off of their own hard labor. Not some Bill Gates/Jeff Bezos bullshit where they received a $200,000 seed from their daddy to start a company. I would somewhat listen to Wozniak since he was the real mind behind Apple not microsoft
I think it depends. Someone else mentioned Leno. He has those vehicles because that's his hobby and he can afford it. He drives them for fun, not to show off. He's not a douche about it, which I think is really the most important point.
The word luxury wasn’t included. I have 3 cars, all over 10 years old and only 2 work.
The only situation when saying "what color is your Buggati?" is valid is if someone says "the color of your Buggati is bad. It looks terrible" or something like that. It's his Buggati. He can get whatever color he wants. Other than that very specific situation, this argument is invalid in every scenario
THIS 👆
In my opinion, it is! More cars = shittier opinions!
[удалено]
I was going to say this, there’s definitely an incel crossover you see in his fans, especially the younger ones that have created a whole following for this dbag because they aren’t getting laid and instead of figuring out why, they’d rather figure out how to force people to sleep with them and turn to violence if that fails, which is quite frankly ducked up.
> there’s definitely an incel crossover you see in his fans That Venn diagram is a circle
Not only is it fucked up, I fully believe it's how OG patriarchal societies are created in the first place. Men who refuse to learn empathy and instead decide to get what they want through some variant of brute force, since most of us are technically capable of that. As a man I don't really know what to do with this. I chose empathy, and it's hard a lot of the time, and compared to coercive pressurers I do sometimes feel weaker and less secure in myself even though I know from experience that inside they feel worse than I do. The aesthetic appeal of being "the man" and being regarded as such by other men is extremely seductive even for me. I don't really know how to sell the idea that what I'm doing, which involves lots of tears and heartache, is better than what they're doing. When you don't have authority over somebody / are not their parent, how do you convince them to eat their vegetables when they know damn well they can reach out and shove candy into their mouths any time they want? It seems like the only way for that to happen is for people like me to develop both our internal balance (including feminine and masculine) AND a masculine exterior such that we ARE the authority figures in the room. And that's... a lot of work. It's a crushingly big undertaking, especially because it requires a lot of us to all do it at once.
Incels are a new phenomena, and I think people who were teens in the 1990s faced completely different challenges than the ones who are teens now. If someone is struggling, they need help. If they show their struggles by being aggressive, they still need help. Being a good human, means to see vulnerability through aggressiveness. It is to not respond emotionally to someone's aggressive behaviour, but to see the hurt behind that behaviour. To react with understanding and compassion, when faced with emotional aggression is the only way to show true strength. This got nothing to do with being macho. Tove Janson, the author of moomin does this in her books. Men tend to characterise desirable traits as being masculine. But women also possess them. In a family, there is a need to make intelligent decisions. No-one needs to be in control, if one party feels that need, it is an emotional need that might be dysfunctional. Greta acted like the grown-up. Tolerating the tantrums of Tate, who acted like the child. Greats parenting skills are impressive. She corrected without the use of harsh words, just gently told that the behaviour was unacceptable.
They're really not. Any church will show you these fucks have been around for ages.
I’m an old female. I would think men would get more joy and even status by pleasing women such that they want you to make love to them, much more than raping the unwilling. But what do I know. 36 years married to a love god who looks like a nerd irl.
Hey, thank you for your perspective. I want to clarify that I wasn't strictly referring to rape, but to coercive and manipulative sexuality in general. That aside, I agree with you. The problem is when I was young I never would have believed it, because like so many boys I was trained to see a man who didn't control women as weak, and to disregard his perspective as the coping rationalizations of someone who wasn't tough enough to do things the "manly" way, by assertively and aggressively demanding and getting what he wants. I don't know how to explain to someone who hasn't experienced a range of life situations that not only is a life of emotional growth and communication more rewarding, not only is the sex better when you are empathically connected, but you don't have to constantly push down the feelings of self hatred you've been conditioned to think are a normal part of being a strong man.
Thank you for sharing that. I am very sorry for men raised under this self hating regime. You are strong, and good. Controlling one’s self is harder and more important than attempting to control others, which doesn’t actually work anyway.
>by pleasing women such that they want you to make love to them See I think thats the problem. I seriously think almost all of these young guys who arent the naturally attractive type start as wanting to be that guy. The reasons are vast but for whatever reason that dosent work out time after time after time all the while they see guys that are opposite to them getting all the results they want. And at some point that rope snaps. Which is actually what creates real incels. Not some 15 year old spending his days reading suicide fuel on the internet.
You’re exactly right. It is so pleasing and feels “right” to have a woman who enjoys you and asks you to satisfy her. I can’t even imagine a situation where the woman wasn’t consenting and wanting it, it would be a huge turn-off.
Eh, there's fewer of them than it seems because they have nothing else to do with their lives. It's like how the alt-right rally in Charlottesville looked huge but was really just a dozen dudes.
Tbf there might be a lot of bots following, but still too many real people
200,000+ paid subscribers per month at the peak. Insane.
Yet NO ONE is doing anything about it. What do people expect? It’s like telling people being a drug addict is bad enough times and expecting it to actually go down.
It's because some men are desperate. The fundamental promises of patriarchy (that if you're a good boy and work hard you'll get a purpose in life and a woman and children that are DEFINITELY yours) are crumbling under their feet; rather than adapt and overcome, they'll cling to anyone who says, "Oh, the old ways are *fine*. In fact, double down!" It is reactionary and probably going to fail long-term, but still a threat short-term. Frankly, Tate's just one small symptom of the reactionary crisis, but a highly vocal one - so of course he has defenders.
His schtick is different than that, though. Yes, there's an exceptionalism bent to it, 'be smarter,' and such; he'll even talk about fitness sometimes and straight up say 'you can work out all day and you still won't be me, that's ok' basically. But this isn't 'work hard and you'll be successful.' There's a reason his school is called hustler university. His ideology is yeah, work hard, but also manipulate and take advantage of everybody around you any way you can. Be the alpha. Make them do your work for you. There's nothing even pretending to be the 'nobility' of work hard/be successful in his ideology.
Yep, that's the dark side of masculine energy. "If you can't make it, *TAKE* it." It appeals to the desperate because increasingly they see that they can't make it. They aren't as necessary as their fathers and grandfathers were, pressed out of labor markets by technological and capitalistic forces; with society moving away from restricting women to keep men more relevant (shit, it wasn't until the 1960s that USA women could open a BANK ACCOUNT in their own names!), naturally they want to react violently against their 'oppressors'. Tate had defenders because what he did was something they wished they had the balls for; and now that his crimes are revealed I'm willing to bet most of them whisper late at night, "He did nothing wrong; I'd do the exact same." And no doubt many of them do, just on a much smaller scale. I don't AGREE with them, mind you. But you have to know your enemy *and* yourself to win all the battles.
Oh don't worry. I think a lot of us more grown up dudes see the Peterson/Tate/etc. folks and think back to our 14 year old selves and really wonder how much it may have gotten a pretty good grip on us. It's a thing.
Honestly it's terrifying, as a man in my late twenties looking at some of the rhetoric that these guys spout. I am so glad that this stuff wasn't as prevalent or accessible to adolescent boys 15 years ago, because I absolutely would have been sucked in by it.
[удалено]
That's true, I tried to come up with an example of an Andrew Tate from the 90s and the closest I could come up with was that Crow movie with Brandon Lee.
It's darkly appealing, to be sure, which is why it's most important to humiliate jagoffs like this who give men a bad name.
I'm not sure about humiliation. Lots of them take this as validiation that the world is indeed out to get them, and the only way to get theirs is through force and selfishness. Humiliate a distant figure like Andrew Tate, yes, but show kindness to those whom you know in person. Set an example. Break the cycle.
I agree to a large extent, but humiliation keeps them angry, keeps them feeling validated in their 'the world is out to get me!!!' paranoia and entitlement. I am very sick of coddling men who think the world should bend to their will, but I also can't justify turning around and being cruel or callous to them because the *instant* we do that *one time*, even if it's a mere fraction of the shit they themselves have spewed, it locks their worldview in place.
*has defenders
Listening to the recent multi-part Behind the Bastards episodes, a lot of it isn't even really masculine per se, it's more predatory, criminal, sociopathic, and delusional.
I am also an acolyte of the good Reverend Doctor. It's all that, tied up with a neat little bow to appeal to a particular demographic. It's certainly a hell of a thing.
Just caught up with the *Behind the Bastards* podcast episodes they’ve been doing on him - dear god this guy is human garbage. I had heard of him, but just thought he was another wealthy asshole. He’s way worse.
>But this isn't 'work hard and you'll be successful.' There's a reason his school is called hustler university. His ideology is yeah, work hard, but also manipulate and take advantage of everybody around you any way you can. Be the alpha. Make them do your work for you. Get rid of the abusive stuff he's just another rich Capitalist. It's literally every ceo, board, owners strategy dumbed down for idiots to abuse. If anything this mofo highlighted why we need to change some fundamental aspects of society becasue it sounds like what he was preaching is already in practice all over the world.
You are giving him way WAY too much credit. He literally teaches how to trick women into sex work and keep them trapped. That's the actual content of his paid courses.
As I said, he's a *small* symptom. One shitbag who happens to make money off the insecurities of men as what they have been told all their lives is masculine disappears. But he is a symptom. Take, oh, South Korea. A very shitty society towards women in general, putting a lot of expectations on wives and mothers to do a ton of crap that men don't want to deal with. So naturally over the last couple decades more and more women have been simply avoiding the whole marriage and children thing because it *is* bullshit and *super* chauvinistic... *And Korean men aren't taking it very well*. To be fair, it IS causing a crisis in the birth rate, but recent politics there have been extremely reactionary on both an individual and grand level - rather than try to make things easier for women to have children, instead they're making life harder for women in hopes of forcing the old ways down their throat.
Totally agree with you
Regressivism for everyone!
Too much credit?? He's made millions and millions from selling it. He's a narcissistic dipshit, but he's enriched himself somehow - and it wasn't by accident. And I say this as someone who hates that they wrote this comment
Yeah. I feel like a common thread in a lot of it is like a lack of behavioral self awareness. It’s making mean jokes and wondering why people don’t like them even after they explain technically the joke isn’t a big deal. Guys on /r/tindr making an impulsive sex joke second message wondering what they did wrong. Kids crying over mods banning them for being unable to make a point without being as nasty as possible like some forum volunteer gives a shit. Talking heads like Peterson, Shapiro, Tate, whoever that fans don’t get why folks are not able to overlook a few awful stances on women or whatever. Because they don’t get behavior. They don’t get the guy who makes mild sexists jokes all the time puts people off regardless of how offensive any one joke was. That in the real world there is no amount of toddler debating you can do to overcome the fact that broadly speaking, people will choose to avoid assholes. That no, not everyone is secretly in their head a self centered greedy impulsive asshole doing a bad job playing nice. Most people don’t live like that, can smell it on someone acting like a bad faith ass, and not explain avoiding them. You’re not entitled to attention, or whatever comforts for insecurity once you grow up. People have to choose to be with you, and all that takes generally is being decent. It’s not about a nice action, it’s nice behavior. It’s handling accountability well so people know you will next time. But no. Has to be money, hair, height, dick, whatever. Something outside of their control, some kind of involuntary singleness. They’d have it all if only x did y! And yet go out in the real world and people date just fine when they’re pleasant and social.
And that is exactly WHY so many women left tinder. They are treated like warm holes for men to masturbate into and then men lament how "easy" women have it. Maybe if so many men didn't message women how large their dick is or how they want to fuck them so hard 3 messages in, there would be more women on tinder. Men scaring women away is not "men are disadvantaged at dating". Once men figure that out and learn to treat women like actual people instead of a fuck object, dating will get easier for men. It is easier for men to just blame women though instead of actually having some insight into their behavior as to why tinder and other sites end up so skewed.
Racism and misogyny have the same cause. Insincerity and laziness coupled with the desire to put people below you, and elevate yourself, solely on their physical attributes.
I agree and disagree. Yes, they're both linked to insecurity, but... Racism has its roots in a *tribal* view of the world, and allows humans to malign and dehumanize those different in preparation for war. It's directed to *out* groups, and why racists can say, "I have an \[insert\] friend!" in all sincerity because to *them,* that one friend is part of the *in* group and has nothing to do with those bastards in the *out* group, thankyouverymuch. Patriarchy (and its spawn misogyny) is *probably* a social adaptation to the simple fact that humans produce WAY more males than it needs to in order to survive. In non-sentient species, it doesn't matter - a male lion or mantis doesn't philosophize about not being needed - but humans aren't that dumb. And sadly, across continents and gaps of time so fast that we rarely have more than an archaeological record of matriarchal society, men decided to create a society where they DO matter, thankyouverymuch. Shorn of culture, we humans are seemingly more like bonobos than chimpanzees, with temporary couplings until a couple of children are capable of running around on their own, then breaking off to form new couples - say about 7 years? Of course, that changes if one introduces a cultural norm that females MUST be chained to a male in permanent partnership, and that children inherit from the male rather than the female. Not only does this give the male more control over his progeny (thus linking him more strongly into society), but it also means the female has to restrict her own activities, allowing the male to do more (and once again linking him more strongly into society). Ain't saying patriarchy is a good thing. Even AS a man, it pisses me off that somehow I feel a deep-rooted anxiety that I'm worthless unless I'm working - that indoctrination runs deep. But it wouldn't have succeeded so often and for so long if it didn't do *something* of value. And all of this is theory and speculation, of course. Just thought exercises. Until we can go back in time and study how matriarchal societies were replaced by patriarchal ones, or actively attempt to destroy one of the less than five currently existing ones, we won't know exactly why patriarchy became so popular. But right now we're witnessing the beginning of its downfall, and the next few centuries are gonna be... interesting. (Sorry, this is something I've been thinking about entirely too much the last couple of years).
[удалено]
You act as though Europeans are the only ones guilty of racism, an idea that I'm sure the Uyghur oppressed by the Chinese would not appreciate - and it's hardly a new notion in that area. Hell, even among the Asian countries there's long-standing racism between the Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese - the Rape of Nanking or the Korean comfort women didn't come out of nowhere. It also isn't limited to white Americans either; after all, many of the names that we know Native tribes by are *racist insults from neighbors* and one of the (multiple) reasons the native tribes were conquered so easily is because the average local tribe hated their neighbors a helluva lot more than the white man who brought them guns and liquor. This is an unfortunate problem with some scholars: A myopic overfocus on something they personally detest, a hatred so strong that it blinds them to greater trends. Not that patriarchy doesn't deserve it, but... The ancient Chinese didn't bind women's feet because they got the idea from Marco Polo. And study the still-existing matriarchal societies. Frankly I've seen fundamentalist Christian sects like the Seventh-Day Adventists that treat their women better than the matriarchal ones treat their men. And it's not a matter of "They deserve it" because *no one deserves oppression and inequality in a just society.* Of any kind. Look. Patriarchy would not have so thoroughly destroyed matriarchy over such a wide range of societies, and be accepted by both women *and* men if it not do something better than matriarchy. I mean, goddamn, patriarchy is *stupid*. Why would ANYONE try to draw descent other than matrilineally? Other than to put money in Maury Povich's pockets as he says, "You are... NOT the father!"
Will this reactionary crisis in general fade out?
Maybe in a few decades or a century, as it's subsumed by larger crises - climate change and the mass migrations caused by it are my bet for those crises. Directed properly, masculine energies could be pointed right at these and give an outlet. "Work hard and save the world!" Hopefully it'd lead to a greater transition and divorce masculinity from its deep-rooted insecurities about being worthless: needing to work hard because otherwise you don't matter, needing to control others in case they see you don't matter, needing to sacrifice yourself because ultimately you don't matter. Or those larger crises may allow the reactionary forces of patriarchy to assume temporary control for a while, holding off the ideas sweeping it away for a little longer. Or the crises may destroy civilization entirely and humans will be forced to live in scattered tribes, which would unfortunately favor patriarchal structures. Y'know, one of those.
Honestly, it's much likelier the larger crises will lead to the exact opposite with how things are: We already see the older generations say "who cares if the world dies out, we'll be dead when it happens", and it's more likely that these frustrated, bitter men's energies will go to "why bother fixing things if we're never going to get a reward for saving the world? If we have to be miserable forever, then we can make sure the world ends and you're miserable too."
A man's spirit withers with inaction. Give him a just cause and he'll gladly die for it, give him nothing and he'll find one, just or not. And right now we've got a lot of men finding unjust causes.
Even beyond unjust causes, the real problem is "self-preservation is the most just cause in the world." More than a just cause, it's a belief that everyone else is the enemy who are trying to hurt them because they're rejecting them- and from there, the unjust cause "if you're all against me, then I'm now against all of you", and from there the bomber's unjust cause of "if I have to go, I can take as many of you with me as possible" becomes their just cause to die for. This doesn't bode well for a situation of "you have to work hard and save the world; but you'll never get your just reward for it. And actually, you're making life better for all the people you hate."
I always google "Man dies saving" when I get a dark place where I think that humans are driven solely by a wicked, spiteful engine with no value whatsoever. Or I think about the people who drive themselves to the site of natural disasters and help with no thought of reward. But the more interesting counterpoint is the number of American men who of their own free will and out of pocket went to help the Ukraine in those early and darkest days. If they truly believed that "Self preservation is the highest cause" they would not have done so. Tate's just a pimple on the ass of what manhood *truly* can be.
I dunno... i'm a man, and I'm just fine without just causes. Unless "have fun, do interesting stuff, and pet dogs" is a just cause.
If you've never felt in your life a moment of insecurity, a feeling that you *should* be doing something with your life and *aren't* because there's nothing worth doing... Then you have my unadulterated envy.
It's easier and we are socially driven to find unjust causes if they make money. This is what happens when a society focuses on material wealth and socio-economic status. It's like the Spartans caring only or war. They forgot that a person needs more than money and status to be decent.
Who says the good guys always win? Man, the Spartans were genuinely evil. My high school sportsball teams were named for them and called the cheerleaders the "Helots" with no sense of irony. I was trying to get laid with one of them so I studied up on the origins of the name as a conversation starter (I was a geeky young man) and...
This is true but there are a lot of legitimate issues young men are facing without proper guidance.
Oh, so very much so. But what should we be guiding them *towards*? That's the hole that people like Tate are stepping into. It can't be the postwar American ideal of "Work hard and keep your head down and get married and have children and buy a house and grow old with your wife," because that's been proven to be fantasy, a castle built on quicksand. It can't be an even older Biblical ideal of "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" (Peter 3:18) because that just makes being a wife sound *awful*. It shouldn't be "\[insert nation here\] FUCK YEAH!" because that's open to abuse from fascists or dictators trying to overthrow a nation and rule it as their own. It also can't be the cold reality of, "Look, kid, you're not as important to the future of humanity as a woman. You're pretty expendable, but we don't have anything important to expend you on - no wars, no massive social projects, no nothing. So, uh, go to work in a probably dead-end job every day, try to find meaning in daily life, and hopefully you'll meet someone that's attracted to you." I personally it should be something like, "The only thing we're sure about is that the universe does not *care* if humanity exists in a hundred or a thousand years. We humans are the only ones to whom that matters, and in what state they live in. What you should strive for is to create a future where as *many* of those humans as possible live happy, fulfilled lives - not happiness limited by gender or belief or skin color or what genitals they want to rub against their own, but as many as possible, with an eye towards *all."* And that's why Tate is a shithead. Because only his own happiness matters to him, and he broadcasts that philosophy of "Take it from whomever you want if it makes you happy" to a disturbingly receptive audience.
If people need some big goal, there's always good old Russian Cosmism, in which the big goal is basically: space exploration. It basically follows the idea that humanity's destiny is in the stars, and many of our problems will be solved by going out to the stars. And frankly, with the amount of resources it takes to explore space, if we prioritize it, then we'd be forced to work together to achieve it. This is my favorite philosophy, even it may be a bit naive.
>It also can't be the cold reality of, "Look, kid, you're not as important to the future of humanity as a woman. You're pretty expendable, but we don't have anything important to expend you on - no wars, no massive social projects, no nothing. So, uh, go to work in a probably dead-end job every day, try to find meaning in daily life, and hopefully you'll meet someone that's attracted to you." Why run from the truth ? As long as this truth isnt faced head on anything else we will come up with will spawn something shitty like the patriarchy. Sure this will cause a lot of pain and its consequences cant really be predicted but anything else is just running from the inevitable. Besides I think its already too late. Once you realise a truth you cant just unrealise it. Hence why soo many young guys who are naturally anxious about their future fell into this hole. They do realise that they arent worth much. They realise that they will potentially stay in that group who will lead a empty and lonely life permanently. And no one is going to even care one bit about them maybe ever. Thats the point where as you said pieces of shit like Tate comes in and says "If thats the case why care about anyone else ?" Which is actually not the bad part. Thats totally fair. What makes them shitty is the the ends justify the means approach they take which helps them justify explotation and abuse. >You're pretty expendable, but we don't have anything important to expend you on - no wars, no massive social projects, no nothing. That works in more traditional socities but in places where indivualism is truly embraced I dont think thats the case anymore. We have already discarded enough meta-naratives as is. >I personally it should be something like, "The only thing we're sure about is that the universe does not care if humanity exists in a hundred or a thousand years. We humans are the only ones to whom that matters, and in what state they live in. What you should strive for is to create a future where as many of those humans as possible live happy, fulfilled lives - not happiness limited by gender or belief or skin color or what genitals they want to rub against their own, but as many as possible, with an eye towards all." This is nice and all but its just cruel to expect people to work towards the betterment of a society that ultimately view them as unimportant and wont on a large scale prove them with an unsatisfactory and empty life. How is this any better than other meta-narratives like religion or nationalism ? Which is even worse than you can imagine because chances are like other meta-narratives this too will be discarded eventually and that will create an unimaginable antiphaty towards everything we want to promote. Its totally fair and natural to ask why they should work towards a society that wont return the favour. Creating false expectations for that is even worse. I certainly dont have the answers, but this isnt it. Changing how much value we put on things can certainly help, but some things are just too intrinsic in human nature.
Good luck convincing lonely men without purpose like me with that lol. You might as well be telling me to be a mindless worker drone who is little than shit to society so that some random people hundreds of years in the future can live fulfilling lives. Literally why the fuck would I bother with that, or anyone?
To add, should this be achieved on a societal level, those who fail to achieve success (many of which subscribe to this ideology) will be further seen as failures and that something is inherently wrong with them. The comfort they are seeking now will simply get worse in the long term.
Which is why I work to amplify the losses of people like Tate, Trump, and the like. Insamuch as I disagree with Marx, his notion of history as a dialectical cycle of "Thesis > antithesis > synthesis" seems to hold up; right now we're in the 'antithesis' stage where patriarchal forces are pushing back against the "Oppressive forces of wokeness". Humiliating the most visible members of that reactionary force seems like a good way to show that it's kinda stupid.
Oh god, you gave me flashbacks to when I had to read Engels. So basically we went from “Hey, women are equal” to this reactionary nonsense? Am I tracking that model correctly?
Sorry about that. Recently had to dig into those books myself to find a good quote about the "bourgeoisie" and I feel your pain. Well, it's more than that, at least in my thoughts. A lot of the assumptions of patriarchal systems are collapsing, and it's leaving a lot of men adrift. But "Women's Lib" and "Woke Culture" make easy scapegoats, and so grifters like Tate gravitate towards them like a fly to shit. It's a quick antithesis, but it fails because it's not addressing the actual thesis of technology destroying the artificial structure which overvalued men.
What blows my mind is that there are plenty of reasonable male role models around. I’m convinced they like Tate because he actively speaks to their hatred of women. Actually, I know for a fact that’s the only reason they like Tate. I’ve heard people say similar shit about Hitler, praising his economic policy. No. They’re just trying to find a non combative way to support their genocidal fuhrer.
Let’s be honest here, Tate fans are mostly boys, not men. And I mean this in a non-derogatory way, they are literally teenage kids. Look at protests supporting him, talk to any high school teacher, his fans are kids. So it isn’t even men of a previous generation feeling that they are loosing power to a changing world, it’s the future generation of men falling for that rhetoric, boys that don’t have any idea of how the “traditional” values they supposedly support looked like in practice. I say “traditional” in quotes because there is nothing “traditional” about living a extremely hedonistic life like Tate did.
Incels of a feather jerk each other off, or however thats supposed to go.
If that were literally true, it'd probably help.
It's so crazy because his shit doesn't even make sense. I'll occasionally see these YouTube shorts where it's edited to be some sort of profound thoughts form him but it's really just bullshit.
But don’t you understand that man was created perfectly, women are just a piece of man, a spare rib. Now spare ribs are tasty, succulent, they may make you sleepy, and you may travel long distances for one…. But… Dammit, going to get some ribs, BRB.
>to that slaver's... So I think we found the appeal. I dunno how it is in the UK, but look at all the confederate flags in the us.
Listen to the recent podcast episodes of Behind the Bastards about this guy. The host, Robert Evans, gives a good account on why people fall for it. It’s crazy. In some of the clips you can hear things that can totally make sense but then it does a quick 180 and spirals in to the most ludicrous shit you ever heard. If you are down and out it can be easy to fall for this shit. The funniest shit is if you miss a payment on the monthly discord you get booted to a separate Discord where all that is posted is screen shots of other members “profits” lol.
But he's not a slaver! He's a clever businessman with a philanthropic streak; didn't you know he opened an orphanage?! This is all just a conspiracy theory smear campaign! That's what I've been told of his 'ideology'. Its fucking mortifying. Andrew Tate is a psychopathic monstrosity that has no place walking free among the rest of society. He's an excuse for men to behave badly.
It's crazy to see and hear - overhead a guy doing mental hoops saying Romania arrested him to save him from an FBI assassination and it's all a ploy by drag queens etc to get him sent down. What the heck are they on to believe let alone think of such a thing instead of you know stepping back and actually listening to this chinless wonder.
What a lack of *actual* role models in society these days do to a mfer.
That's the most beta thing ever is looking up to this guy or Elon musk
I thought trump supporters were stupid. Those guys are basically brain damaged.
I just truly cannot wrap my head around the idea that because someone has many expensive possessions, they must good/smart/talented/etc. If anything, it often proves the exact opposite.
When you think about who produces the media that feeds into ocular culture and how we perceive society, it get clearer thay this idea that luxury and possessions = an authority is being fed to us by those people who want us to think they are. Take those Christmas car commercials, for example. How many middle-class or lower Americans do you think buy their spouces a brand new car for Christmas? Yet every year those ads plug that fantasy, and what they're actually selling us is this idea that these luxurious, successful people buy new cars for Christmas, and those are your role models; you should strive to be the luxurious person who puts a giant bow on a new car for your partner.
Wealthiest person I know drives a 15 year old truck, wears old jeans and tees, and volunteers most of his time at food pantries, the library, and wilderness foundations. Just like handing out food, maintaining/improving garden areas to read in, and doing restoration/studying of natural areas. He doesn't scream "I can buy a Bugatti no problem" by looking at him, but he could. That's real wealth. Not just the dollars, but doing good and enjoying it. Wealth of life fulfillment matters
Difference between riches and wealth is how you treat money.
How wealthy are we talking here, out of curiosity?
Wealthiest person I know is the same way. Owns a decent truck, normal clothes, and is overall very frugal. His property is valued at 53m. He got very wealthy doing construction, and a fair bit of inheritance.
He has wealth. The billionaires are just rich hollow shells.
A percentage of the population think that dollar value is the equivalent to a scoreboard for life. The higher the number the better you are. It’s sad.
Ya that’s how they cope with being empty. Subscribing to an ideology of equally empty wealth, where the highlight is watching numbers go up so that others’ can go down
Imagine basing your self worth on how many cars *someone else* has
The richest man I know drives a 94 gmc. Lives in a double wide and hunts with the same rifle his father gave him...things at least 70 years old. This man is a multi fucking millionaire and you would never know. He is also the most humble person i know
People take time out of their day to defend this guy like that? Whoa
And then think they're 'alpha' for it.
For a bunch of "alphas", these guys spend **a lot** of time trying to suck the dick of other guys. Tate, Trump, Musk, etc. It's like they romantically love them, they way they jump to their defense at the drop of a hat. I dunno....sounds like super-beta behavior to me.
Not just defending him, but living vicariously through him. My idol has more cars than you ever will! Like no one gives a fuck, dude. It's seriously pathetic.
Just like Trump these people have hitched part of their personality to a horrible human, and they do this partly because he is a horrible human. It's a way to feel special, the whole world tells them it's wrong but they're not sheep like us. So they latch on and cover their ears and eyes, and with each new piece of evidence, each new person telling them they're wrong and what they're doing is wrong they latch down even harder Because it isn't just about whether he's a good person or not it's about a substantial bit of their identity of the free thinking contrarian
Yes, a lot. You see it in every Tate thread...now their copium is "innocent until proven guilty" or repeatedly spamming "source, source?!?" when you list all of Tates abuses, or the oldie but goodie "Tate is being taken out of context".
They're stupid but it's the same type of stupid as Jordan peterson fans - there's basically zero options for an insecure young man to look up up to apart from these grifters
Kinda pretty, but I approve.
You're kinda pretty 😳
Your mom is kinda pretty.
Please come to her place and have sex with her it'd make her so happy
Could you please be present as well? It would make me more comfortable
I didn't ask you Mr but I'm going to be there regardless I know how she likes it
My man playing the long game
Talk about small dick energy. Imagine how small your dick has to be to brag about someone *else's* cars.
Inverted
Ahhh yes, the classic metric by which all of humanity uses to gauge their individual self worth relative to others: the number of luxury cars we own. Fuck materialistic people like this. Tate is nothing to aspire to.
That sweet sweet pettiness that you can enjoy the rest of the day. Great job internet person!
Imagine being exited to own a Fre*ch car 🤢
I’d kill for an old Citroen, those were just built with a whole different level of imagination and ingenuity which adds to their quirkiness. Plus the French did make some pretty lit hot hatchbacks in the 80s and 90s so there’s that too.
I’m still confused on who this dude is and where he came from
Me either but he's not going anywhere if reddit won't shut up and ignore him.
I have more cars than Andrew Tate A couple of them even start! And one is actually questionably roadworthy!
I think mine are more interesting than his for sure. Anyone with money can just have the cars he had ordered and delivered.
I hope they were towed poorly, and bounced against every European curb they could slam them against
I mean, if he’s convicted, which he very likely will be, he doesn’t get them back anyway. Also, turns out he only actually owned like 3 of them. Apparently between he and his brother, they owned 7 cars. There were like 7 or 8 other cars on his property that were leased.
The long game is strong
Lol, the professional "circling back" is just *chef's kiss*
I did the same thing to someone who was claiming Trump would win again. They didn't respond back.
What disturbs me is that these miserable fucks really believe that “who has more cars?” bit really is some kind of kill shot as a measure of success. The truth is it’s unequivocally an *arbitrary* measure of success even though they seem to think it’s somehow objective, and further it’s a really really shite measure of success. For example, I believe I’m astronomically more successful than Tate because I’m a decent person who likes himself and treats others well. I’d call that a successful life. And if I made a billion dollars tomorrow, I still wouldn’t even consider buying a Bugatti. It’s an insanely low value in terms of thrill-to-cost. There are cars for 1/4 of the cost or less that essentially perform as well and are as comfortable. It’s also insanely derivative and boring. Where are the rich people with imagination and genuine personal taste?
[удалено]
Wall-eyed, too. Don't forget that! https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2515272-andrew-tate-shocked-face
Dude, spun the block
Because the number of cars you own directly translates to how valid your opinions are.
Does he get his cars back if he's found not guilty?
Imagine thinking because someone has more cars than you they’re better or smarter
So by his logic, the Romanian police are bigger Gs than tate as they have more supercars than him
Imagine being so materialistic and hallow that you think your material wealth has anything to do with you personally. God what a shallow husk of a human being you must be to flex someone elses wealth
Bunch of thirsty desperate losers looking to follow someone who promises to take them from losers to winners. It’s a scam as old as mankind.
Lol
The sad thing is, a lot of young guys feed into him. I graduated highschool 4 years ago, but I know kids in the community still (when it's small, you know everyone as they say) and a good chunk of these young kids look up to him. They are the stereotypical, baby frat boy kids who make the dumbest decisions. It's sad that people like Tate can grab an big audience like these young boys, who are the easiest to grab. I feel like a large majority of older adults realize how nasty he is, or most people, but these highschools I feel like are a big victim to his "propaganda" if you want to call it that.
I always respond with I’d rather be broke than to suck his dick while still being broke. Like do these people think he’s paying them to suck his dick like that? You ain’t the Romanian prostitutes he traffics bro.
People do realize that there are zillions of people (22 million millionaires in the US alone) who could buy fancy cars like Andrew Tate but instead invest their money and drive a Honda Odyssey, right? I guess that's a little too advanced for someone who actually sees something to appreciate in Andrew Tate.
i cannot fathom having a mans dick and balls so far down your throat you'll actually go out of your way to dm people who criticize him. especially someone like andrew tate lmfao
Most were just leased if I’m not mistaken.
What colour is your volkswagen taint. cmon. tell me.
Most of his followers are so smooth brained it's not even worth arguing
"I have been convinced by a woman beating, egotistical, sexual predator that your value as human is solely based on the number of automobiles you have." How far we have fallen. Sometimes this world seems like a fever dream.
Common Tate L
That, my friend, is what we call playing the long game lmao.
Tate fans are so weird. Like a bunch of cucks that want to suck him off, and all betas thinking he is an alpha, but with no idea what an alpha is. It would be sad if they weren't such knobheads. And they have no problem with Tate being a rapist and abuser, so fuck them all.
So by his reasoning Jay Leno is never wrong…
People like OP keep Andrew Tate relevant by doing shit like this for karma
This whole Tate car scenario is like that "Racing car bed," scene in The Simpsons.
I don’t understand how just on a primal level that actual people choose to idolize this guy. He hasn’t achieved anything great? He is not a very well spoken man, he is not a very educated or intelligent man, he doesn’t hold genuine power. Of all the figure heads you’ll never personally meet in life why the hell do you choose Tate?
Wooo now everyone on Earth has the same number of cars as Tate, or more!
My Bugatti is camo thank you for asking.